tv?

After looking at that new MBPr and that powerful display, it seems to me Apple's next logical move is to make a 5k TV set.

You would have a 52" 5k TV in your edit suit that would talk seamlessly to your Mac without cables and converters.

But how would this work in your house? Nobody is broadcasting 5k.
I could see apple cutting a deal with hollywood to provide them with 5k content kind of like they cut a deal with the music industry for iTunes or att for their phones. Once they figure out a way to deliver it (and they will, if they haven't already) it would give them the last piece of the puzzle.
"Watch our exclusive 5k content on our exclusive 5k TV sets"
Maybe you show up to a red box type thing with a thumb drive to load the material.

That MBPr is faster than my mac pro with no spinning disk.
Their desktops tend to be faster than their laptops so if their next desktop is faster than that monster MBPr and has a display like that and no spinning metal I think it will handle my work just fine.

For a "consumer" driven company they sure seem to be doing a good job of taking over my work place.

Take the teleprompter for example. More times than not these days that's an iPad under that glass. Producers love it. It's small and the last golf tournament I worked we had it on a mini jib. The last World Series we had an old school prompter that was heavy a pain to balance. I doubt it will be on the next WS.

The announcers use their iPads for stats and player head shots because it takes up less space on the desk when we put all our return monitors and pov cam up. Graphics guys ipads also along side their laptops.

Their "consumer" products seem to be all over the sets I'm working on these days.

I'm not rushing out to buy a pc anytime soon.

I think apple is setting themselves up to push into my work place (and home) even more in the future than they are now.

Why? Both were critically panned before and after their release. And most notably, they were told their biggest failure would be the Apple Stores. One of the most profitable store chains in history.

I don't see a retina TV at all. But I do see a decently priced TV that will work with the digital hub seamlessly, as well as with the phones, internet, etc. much better than any other TV out there.

I have a nice 42" Vizio with all the internet apps built in. But when I got an AppleTV and hooked it up, I never again touched the clumsy interface of the Vizio. It was night and day. Throw in that EVERY aspect of the TV will be immensely more thought out, including a remote, and you've got a winner I think.

[Bret Williams]"I don't see a retina TV at all. But I do see a decently priced TV that will work with the digital hub seamlessly, as well as with the phones, internet, etc. much better than any other TV out there.

I have a nice 42" Vizio with all the internet apps built in. But when I got an AppleTV and hooked it up, I never again touched the clumsy interface of the Vizio. It was night and day. Throw in that EVERY aspect of the TV will be immensely more thought out, including a remote, and you've got a winner I think.
"

I agree. No Retina TV. Not even remotely likely. Or even currently plausible at 55". And, what would anyone do with that? A screen that large is meant to be seen from a distance, so why would a Retina screen matter?

But yeah, the newest iteration of the AppleTV works really well. Though I personally like the idea of keeping the device separate from my TV, I can see a more advanced version of it being implemented in a TV. If they do, though, I hope they keep selling the box as well, as that would be my choice.

I DO wonder though; other than having less clutter--which admittedly is a big deal for some folk--what the value would be over the current version.

Siri. FaceTime. I'm guessing some sort of channel management. Integrating channels and internet channels as one concept. So, none of the whole apple TV stuff of hdmi 3 and cable on hdmi 2 and dvd player on hdmi 1, etc. A more unified experience. How about watching a show and having links to hulu or iTunes versions right on the screen? I dunno. Stuff like that. There's really so much.

[Bret Williams]"Siri. FaceTime. I'm guessing some sort of channel management. Integrating channels and internet channels as one concept. So, none of the whole apple TV stuff of hdmi 3 and cable on hdmi 2 and dvd player on hdmi 1, etc. A more unified experience. How about watching a show and having links to hulu or iTunes versions right on the screen? I dunno. Stuff like that. There's really so much."

None of that seems unworkable to me with a standalone box.

And if that is Apple's idea (which sounds a lot like the Revue anyway), I think it's far more likely that the TV will have NO connectivity, keeping you tied to the built-in iTunes interface for everything.

[Bill Davis]"If Apple can make a unified TV experience that lets me dump my old, annoying money soak cable company and simply lets me buy what I want - when I want - watch it when I like - anywhere I choose...

I'm in.

And I'm likely one among millions."

And they won't be able to. There's more than just coming up with the idea. I don't think Apple would be able to completely supplement cable TV for at least another decade.

Besides, there's nothing about this idea that requires an Apple television. Why can't a set top box add this same functionality?

[Gary Huff]"And they won't be able to. There's more than just coming up with the idea. I don't think Apple would be able to completely supplement cable TV for at least another decade.

Besides, there's nothing about this idea that requires an Apple television. Why can't a set top box add this same functionality?"

You're going to bet against the guy who re-invented 5 major industries and who said right before his death "We finally cracked the code on TV."

Now, granted, Steve was often hyperbolic. But way more than normal folks, he managed to transform his hyperbole into successful products.

And anyway, I don't want him to "supplement" cable. I want Apple to distroy it. It's a terrible, terrible system.

You aggregate a thousand programs an hour and feed it to everyone even tho any one of those folks only want at most 10 of those programs - and you put in some mystic "tiered" pricing scheme so that every single customer has to pay for vastly more than they actually wish to consume.

If you're at your office, you're paying RIGHT NOW for the capacity that the TV that's TURNED OFF in your home living room is connected to.

We were forced to buy into that model because it was all we had available for decades.

Now, it's not.

So change will happen.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

And who will own the transmission methods for this new era of on demand only programming? I just don't see the cable, satellite or ADSL providers, helping Apple to detroy the current paradigm of broadcast television. And what about the content providers themselves? USA, HBO, Showtime, Cinemax... what's in it for them?

[Gary Huff]"Yes, absolutely. But will they be able to maintain that reach with the money they'd want to pull in from doing that? Probably not at first."

Why should HBO care whether their content is delivered to their viewer's eyeballs by Time Warner/Verizon/Comcast's TV service or Time Warner/Verizon/Comcast's data service plus an Apple interface, so long as they get paid?

How is making it harder for their customers to buy and enjoy the content good for business?

The market is speaking. They want their content a la carte, on the screen and at the time of their choosing. Distribution should change to give the market what they're looking for in exchange for money, so everyone can win.

There are a ton of people that would pay for a standalone service, but if HBO does it the cable providers might just not renew contracts (or it might violate contracts), they would drop HBO, thereby losing HBO 100% of those cable customers immediately (or at least for a little while - some would access it through the new HBO standalone service, but not all of them). Are there sufficient numbers of standalone subscribers to cover that loss?

It's a numbers game, and unfortunately the cable/satellite providers seem to have the numbers on their side. I would personally rather pay $10-$15 bucks/month directly to HBO and Showtime for their original content than pay a cable subscription + $10-$20 for it.

Basically, he back tracks all the way home with the realization that HBO makes a metric ton of money from being on cable TV and they probably aren't ready to kick that cable $$$ to the curb and go it alone. At least not yet.

There's a huge difference between being a middle man (Apple & iTMS) and being the one footing the bill to produce the content itself. The iTMS was designed as a loss leader to sell iPods. If Apple went all music label and started funding bands we'd see a whole different business model. Same thing with Netflix and Hulu. Sure, they are successful, but they are successful selling content other people paid to make. Neither companies' current business model could survive if they had to fund all the content they distributed.

[Andrew Kimery]"Basically, he back tracks all the way home with the realization that HBO makes a metric ton of money from being on cable TV and they probably aren't ready to kick that cable $$$ to the curb and go it alone. At least not yet."

I don't see how it's in HBO's best interest to build their own online store, either, any more than they should run their own wires to people's homes.

Exploiting other existing venues for distribution is another question entirely.

[Walter Soyka]"I don't see how it's in HBO's best interest to build their own online store, either, any more than they should run their own wires to people's homes.

Exploiting other existing venues for distribution is another question entirely."

I wonder how much liberty they have to do that though given their current contracts? Releasing on DVD/BR is one thing but cable companies might have exclusivity windows that bar HBO from putting their content on iTunes and Amazon streaming until the new season comes around.

Also, down the line, maybe HBO has plans to break out on its own and be a streaming rival to Netflix. If that's the case it is in their best interests to keep their original programing close to their vests as a way to differentiate themselves from their competition (even if it's only possible future competition at this point). For the same reason I doubt Netflix, Hulu and YouTube are going to be farming out their new original IPs out to other distributors.

But you are right. I don't know if HBO can or should dump their business model any time soon.

I do know that distributors have, in recent history, resisted changes to their business models that ultimately provided new sources of revenue (like home video or music downloads). They forget that the customers pay the bills and therefore have a say in how the market works, too.

[Walter Soyka]"I do know that distributors have, in recent history, resisted changes to their business models that ultimately provided new sources of revenue (like home video or music downloads). They forget that the customers pay the bills and therefore have a say in how the market works, too."

As cable and TV contracts start expiring in the coming years I think that's when we will see things get really interesting. I mean, I'm sure HBO would love to sell HBO Go on the side for a monthly fee to people that don't have cable subscriptions but obviously the likes of TW and Comcast wouldn't be keen on that idea. And, honestly, I wouldn't be either if I paid top dollar for the right to carry HBO's programing. Maybe a future contract will lower HBO's carriage fee in exchange for HBO being able to sign up it's own subscribers via HBO Go directly.

Being an Ameican football fan I'm curious to see what happens in 9yrs when the freshly signed TV contractions are set to expire. Will the NFL start venturing out on its by own streaming games or will the billions of dollars they get from ESPN, FOX, CBS & NBC keep them tied, in some way, to those broadcasters? Will ESPN, FOX & CBS follow NBCs lead and simulcast games on line?

I think traditional TV distribution has peaked, but it's not going away anytime soon, IMO. For example, in the US, legal music download sales toped CD sales for the first time ever last year (IIRC 51% to 49%) and this is with CD sales being in a free fall for the better part of a decade.

[Walter Soyka]"There's apparently a huge audience that wants the content, but HBO is doggedly pursuing their old distribution model:"

Fair enough... but I wonder if these audiences are big enough to pay for big shows like Game of Thrones and Trueblood. Would a subscription or PPV model for individual shows or premium content channels be any cheaper than what we currently have?

[Shawn Miller]"Fair enough... but I wonder if these audiences are big enough to pay for big shows like Game of Thrones and Trueblood. Would a subscription or PPV model for individual shows or premium content channels be any cheaper than what we currently have? "

There are 10 episodes of Game of Thrones in a season. At $3 per episode, that's $30 for the season. HBO costs what, $17/mo? The 2.5 months to cover GoT would then be $42, but that fee also covers everything else that airs on HBO (and neither fee accounts for revenue sharing).

I do absolutely agree with you that it's easier for a producer/distributor to take risks on specific shows when you force bundling of other content to spread the money and risk around, but there's a lot of customer resistance to the status quo.

[Walter Soyka]"There are 10 episodes of Game of Thrones in a season. At $3 per episode, that's $30 for the season. HBO costs what, $17/mo? The 2.5 months to cover GoT would then be $42, but that fee also covers everything else that airs on HBO (and neither fee accounts for revenue sharing)."

I agree, if an individual only wants to see GoT, this makes sense... but if they want GoT, Nurse Jackie, Spartacus and Walking Dead, it will start to add up.

[Walter Soyka]"
...but there's a lot of customer resistance to the status quo."

Very true, and I think with good reason. It's an interesting question though... how much value does all of this programming have to the average user, and can all (or most of it) be delivered in a way that benefits all parties? :-)

[Bill Davis]"[Chris Harlan] "I DO wonder though; other than having less clutter--which admittedly is a big deal for some folk--what the value would be over the current version.
"

One word: Integration."

Sure. I agree that's a possibility. Maybe even a strong one. I don't find that attractive, but I can certainly see that enough people might to make a difference. Just for the record--I'm expecting Apple to introduce a TV, I'm just not certain how well it will actually do. But that may just be because I don't find the idea particularly attractive. Frankly, it feels to me like a huge step backwards, but that's a gut feeling, and I'm not sure I really care enough to think it out past that.

[Bret Williams]"I have a nice 42" Vizio with all the internet apps built in. But when I got an AppleTV and hooked it up, I never again touched the clumsy interface of the Vizio."

That's great. So would you sell or give away that Vizio for a 42" Apple TV that's only different because it has the AppleTV interface built-in?

Apple will probably only have one size of TV, given their history. Will that be the size people want (i.e. 42" was fine in an apartment, but seems pretty small in a house now to me)? Also, the TV will probably be over $1000. Is that worth buying when you probably already have a perfectly good TV with a $99 AppleTV device?

What will Apple do with a TV, aside from incorporating their $99 set top box into it, that will be worth the premium they will charge for it?

Frankly, I think the idea of building "apps" and so on into TVs is totally dumb. TVs should be "dumb terminals" with which you hook up devices to them, giving way, eventually, to a standard that allows you to "throw" media to it from any computer.

I think these rumors are just as ludicrous as those about Apple releasing a 7" iPad.

[Gary Huff]"Frankly, I think the idea of building "apps" and so on into TVs is totally dumb. TVs should be "dumb terminals" with which you hook up devices to them, giving way, eventually, to a standard that allows you to "throw" media to it from any computer.
"

I agree with you about this, and have never been attracted to the whole Smart TV thing, but other people seem to think there is a there there. I have never seen the value, myself, but going on Jobs comments just prior to his death, I DO think Apple has something in mind.

Well jeez. What a pessimist. If you've got to buy a TV, it might as well be a better TV. I don't buy Sony's because they're overpriced and the interface sucks. Vizio's are better overall I find, and the interface is better, but the interface still sucks. I have a 42" Vizio. I also have 2 12" tube TVs (bedroom and porch), a 27" tube TV, living room, a 20" tube TV, guest bedroom. Am looking for a bedroom LCD and a new living room TV as soon as we get rid of the built in 80s TV cabinet that can't hold much more than a 27" tube set. So, I've got TVs to buy in the future. And the LCDs don't really last that long. I have a 24" Vizio in the edit room that is losing some umph already after 2 years.

I love my standalone appleTV box. But it's probably only 20% of the user experience we'll get from a branded TV.

[Bret Williams]"
I love my standalone appleTV box. But it's probably only 20% of the user experience we'll get from a branded TV."

I think that's giving a TV way too much credit. There's no reason why you can't get Siri on a box the size of the current Apple TV, either with a built in microphone or (more likely) via your iPhone/iTouch/iPad.

Neither the Xbox Kinect or the Wii require something built in to the TV to work well.

[tony west]"
oh I'm sure there were people that said they shouldn't make a phone."

The smartphone market was just evolving and there was a window of opportunity for something new and revolutionary. Same with the iPad, Apple pretty much started the tablet market.

Right now, you can walk into your Best Buy and purchase any number of sizes and technologies (LCD/Plasma/LED) and features (3D, 240Hz, ect). and buy a $99 Apple TV to have that interface if you so desire.

What is the market for a 42" $1200 TV that has the $99 Apple TV interface built-in?

[Gary Huff]"Right now, you can walk into your Best Buy and purchase any number of sizes and technologies (LCD/Plasma/LED) and features (3D, 240Hz, ect). and buy a $99 Apple TV to have that interface if you so desire."

That's the problem. Just like I've never bought a Mac monitor because other companies make them just as good, at a lower price point, with a very similar minimalistic design, I think it's going to be difficult to convince people to throw out their existing TVs and buy a new one when they can just pick up the $99 Apple TV now and have the exact same experience. The only way a dedicated Apple TV will work is if they discontinue the standalone $99 unit and use their interface as a selling point for the TV, other than that I can't see it working.

I think Apple has proven that they can compete price wise. The iPad and iPhone may not be the cheapest, but they're not much more than the competition feature wise, and when you factor in the build quality and interface design people don't usually go back.

[Bret Williams]" I think Apple has proven that they can compete price wise. The iPad and iPhone may not be the cheapest, but they're not much more than the competition feature wise, and when you factor in the build quality and interface design people don't usually go back."

An Apple television will probably be a lot more expensive than the iPhone/iPad.

[Gary Huff]"What is the market for a 42" $1200 TV that has the $99 Apple TV interface built-in?
"

It would have to do more than that.

It would have to be seamless with my computer. Like I'm working on FCP X and I get up and walk into the other room and it's on that TV also. All my files interconnected. Then I hit mission control and watch the ballgame or the Wire.

Also the only TV you can buy is 1080

This TV would have a higher res than that.

If it's just a 1080 tv like the rest yeah, people won't see it as different enough.

SMPTE evolved out of trying to make sense of a long ago wild west situation much like the one we have now. I don't think they are trying to impose any standards (or really ever thought they could) on anyone. And I'm not saying that's what you meant, Jeremy. I just feel that SMPTE's motives are very often misunderstood.

[TImothy Auld]"SMPTE evolved out of trying to make sense of a long ago wild west situation much like the one we have now. I don't think they are trying to impose any standards (or really ever thought they could) on anyone. And I'm not saying that's what you meant, Jeremy. I just feel that SMPTE's motives are very often misunderstood."

I am not blaming SMPTE for anything. There are good reasons to have standards and I appreciate them.

I said SMPTE as it was much shorter than to write every "TV" standard available in NTSC/PAL. :)

But if you want to release your movie in 4k to the internet (or retina display @ 48 fps for whatever reason) you couldn't do that on TV today.

[tony west]"When you say right now you are already done. These people don't think about right now.

They think about 10 years down the line."

Aren't we talking about buying devices for right now, though? Why invest in technology that may or may not be useful in the future, aren't you just guaranteeing that you'll have a painfully outdated device by the time your hoped-for technology even becomes relevant?

At some point, I'm sure 4k videos will be the norm in home entertainment... question is, will I want to play them on a four year old device that cost twice as much as the 'current' technology?

[tony west]"oh I'm sure there were people that said they shouldn't make a phone.

they should just stick with computers."

The big difference was that smart phones and pad devices had very little market share at the time they dipped in, so the iphone and ipad were poised to develope a market that hadn't reach its potential.

With TV sets the market is saturated. It would be a much tougher market share for Apple to penetrate. I don't really see them committing a large portion of their developement resources into an arena in which they would have to really slug it out to make monster profits.

However, if Apple's goal is to dominate every form of electronic entertainment delivery like some sort of media Illuminati, they might give it a try.

[Clint Wardlow]"However, if Apple's goal is to dominate every form of electronic entertainment delivery like some sort of media Illuminati, they might give it a try."

Let's also not begin to give Apple "superhuman" corporation powers. They can easily fall as flat on their face as anyone else. If Apple does wade into the TV ocean, it doesn't mean they are going to automatically rule the market.

[Gary Huff]"Let's also not begin to give Apple "superhuman" corporation powers. They can easily fall as flat on their face as anyone else. If Apple does wade into the TV ocean, it doesn't mean they are going to automatically rule the market."

This won't be a dumb question in the near future: "What's a 'computer'?"

I just installed a new Denon AV Receiver that is network and AirPlay enabled. What a revolution.

Every streaming radio/music, etc., service in the world, plus solid linkage with my (admittedly Apple) portable devices, for even more sources. The new Denon remote has less than half the buttons on my 12-year-old AVR-3300 remote-- in fact, the portable devices; iPad, iPhone are the remote. The sound performance, especially with their auto-room placement calibration simply knocked my socks off. Same old speakers, totally different experience. One knob on the front of the AVR, and an intelligent front display, so I don't need to turn on the plasma to see what I'm doing. I think my wife will be delirious.

Apple don't really need to build a display -- as long as they completely inhabit the connectivity.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.

If Apple have made his actual fortune, is because iPods, IPhones, iPads and Macs are used all around the world, but, which market is ready for a 5K TV?
I think Bret's idea for an Apple TV is feasible and marketable, but nothing more futuristic just for a niche market.
rafael

The TV does seem a little counterintuitive for apple. On the one hand, it would complete the Apple Ecosystem and allow you to stream itunes, airplay, etc. in a centralized area. On the other hand, the tv isn't mobile and the industry as a whole is moving towards smaller, mobile devices to consume media. They definitely wouldn't come out with a 5K TV. Its too far ahead of the market and the masses wouldn't even know what 5K means (and they certanily wouldn't pay the premium for it). Not to mention, tv sales have been slowing for several years now. Unless Apple finds a way to completely reinvent the market or come up with a "new" tv-like product, I think a tv would be a mistake for them. BTW, I just cancelled cable and only watch stuff on my Ipad or computer now :)

Not sure the higher resolution would be appreciated in most consumer settings -- viewing distance too far from screen, diminishing returns, rule of thirds on screen size vs. viewing distance. And - the market doesn't seem to be there - consumers willing to give up quality for immediacy and price.

[tony west]"They want everybody to buy that laptop even though right now must people can't really make full use of a screen like that."

Even if Apple does release a TV, I guarantee you it won't be over 1080p. What's the point? iTunes just recently moved to 1080 content, and why would Apple sell you a 5K TV now when they can just as easily sell you a 1080p now and then a 5k later?

[tony west]"Their "consumer" products seem to be all over the sets I'm working on these days.

I'm not rushing out to buy a pc anytime soon.

I think apple is setting themselves up to push into my work place (and home) even more in the future than they are now.

I might as well be ready for it."

I just think good technology wins.

The iPad is stunningly good technology. It's transforming all sorts of things.

I read yesterday that the San Diego Unified School District just completed the purchase of 26,000 iPads for their students Those will replace paper textbooks in all or parts of grades 6,7, and 8.

My corporate clients are all going there. One health care company I produce for gave all their 100+ sales reps iPads 6 months ago - and the CEO happily noted to me that his workforce would essentially "train themselves" to use it - something they've had to pay significant money for with all previous tech.

This stuff takes time to mature and propagate, but in the case of the iPhone and iPad, this has been a huge shift and the adoption pace is accelerating fast.

I think the old "pro" vs "consumer" divide is kinda silly in the modern era.

Consumers and pros have one central reality in common - they're people.

And the iPad is soaring because virtually every person who uses one - likes the experience.

Nothing more or less than that.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

I think Apple TV, whatever it may be in the future, has a much tougher road ahead of it than any of Apple's other products.

First, the HDTV / Home theater market doesn't seem to be sitting on its butt and slowly upgrading like other tech sometimes does. I mean, the push for 3D in the home that started a few years ago and that's not really going gang busters so this past CES multiple companies were showing off 4k TVs that look less like prototypes and more like ready for the showroom. It's also common for TVs now to be Internet ready and come with apps for everything from Netflix to Pandora to Facebook (sub-$100 blu-ray players do this too). Some TVs are also already coming w/voice control, gesture & facial recognition and gaming services like OnLive and Gaikai that allow you to play PC and console games in the cloud via your TV (plus a controller of course).

Second, there's content. Content is king and w/o an impressive lineup of exclusive content I don't think Apple TV can break out from the pack. And right now, with things like HBO GO, NHL Game Center, Netflix, etc., the trend is for content providers to get their 'channel apps' on as many devices as possible.

Third, have you seen what the PS3, 360 and, to a lesser extent, the Wii / WiiU have to offer in terms of being home media centers & streaming devices? Microsoft has even made deals with traditional TV distributors like Comcast and Verizon to make some of their content available on Xbox Live as well as a deal w/AT&T to pipe their content directly through the 360 instead of using AT&Ts cable box. Not to mention Microsoft's SmartGlass that they showed at E3 this year. It's basically a feature that will allow AirPlay-like functionality (and much more) between a 360 and Android, iOS & Windows 8 mobile devices.

Lastly, the raging success of the iDevices is in part built on a large portion of the user base upgrading every 12-24 months. I just don't see that happening with TVs (especially large, this-is-nearly-eating-my-living-room sized TVs). If a cornerstone of the future Apple TV is being a key part of the Apple ecosystem they are going to have to give it much longer legs than an iPad or iPhone. I mean, the original iPad, a device barely over 2yrs old, isn't even qualified to run i0S 6 (and the iPad 2 only gets limited support of iOS 6). People just don't cycle through TVs like they do cell phones or even computers (not yet at least).

I'm not saying Apple TV will never break out of hobby status, as Apple likes to call it, but I think it is going to be a big up hill climb. Of course, Apple's secret weapon is usually taking existing things and stream lining the user experience so we'll have to wait and see if that will be enough this time around.

[Bill Davis]"I think the old "pro" vs "consumer" divide is kinda silly in the modern era. Consumers and pros have one central reality in common - they're people. And the iPad is soaring because virtually every person who uses one - likes the experience."

Which is why I think Craig nailed it when he described Apple's product design using the word "personal."

[Walter Soyka]"Which is why I think Craig nailed it when he described Apple's product design using the word "personal."
"

Yep.

However, you get enough "persons" together - and you've got a company. (or a country for that matter!)

I was in a meeting with a tech guy who sells into large enterprise customer. The decision maker says 'we're an all PC house" and the tech guy says "no, you're not, I did a WiFi search in your lobby and 50% of the people on your two floors have connected iDevices in use.

It's a personal interface - but it's an interface to anything the person chooses.

And that makes it as useful to corporate and enterprise as it is to my kid.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor

[Bill Davis]"However, you get enough "persons" together - and you've got a company. (or a country for that matter!) ... It's a personal interface - but it's an interface to anything the person chooses. And that makes it as useful to corporate and enterprise as it is to my kid."

I disagree, because organizations have additional sets of considerations that individuals do not. They are not insurmountable, but there are real challenges with top-down organizations integrating bottom-up technology.

I also believe that the sets of professional requirements share intersections with the set of personal requirements, but they are certainly not identical. It's Venn-tastic.

But I've gone off-topic again.

I agree with you that with Apple on our desks, in our briefcases (or messenger bags or backpacks, for the boutique set), and in our pockets, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to be in our living rooms, too. It further strikes me as very un-Apple to have a set-top box instead of a totally self-contained appliance.

[Gary Huff]"What would it take for you to dump your current TV for an Apple television if it's $1000+?"

I wouldn't dump my current TV today. I just upgraded to HD. (I'm Mr. High Res at work, but I was still rocking a standard definition CRT at home. This brought my family endless amusement... and frustration.)

That said, I will replace it eventually, just as I replaced my old SD tube.

And while we are fantasizing about products Apple might give us to complete a total Apple video infrastructure, how about a prosumer camcorder that delivers raw 5k HD and uses a chip based on a Cinerama aspect ratio instead of the old dinky 35mm standard.

If iTunes offered up live Sports then cable is done for me.
I pay close to 100 a month on cable alone and honestly only watch sports.
But I still would like the option of seeing others (CreativeCow Creatives) work on the boob tube :)

Ii am sure that what ever apple wants is not just to please you with a viewing experience. they want your data,what you see; how much you see. that to them is much more imortant. data collecting is the game.

[tony west]"I could see apple cutting a deal with hollywood to provide them with 5k content kind of like they cut a deal with the music industry for iTunes or at for their phones. Once they figure out a way to deliver i"

It's not just a matter of figuring out how to deliver it. The content doesn't exist to be delivered. Television is not made at 5k. Very few films- next to none in the grand scheme of things- have been scanned at 5k.

4k kind of makes sense as it's close to the resolution of 35mm but why 5k? It's just completely unnecessary. Even IMax does not consider that sort of resolution necessary and their screen is rather larger than 55 inches.

All that said, it does sound like the sort of thing Apple would do... But didn't they just drop the 17 inch MacBook Pro because those 2 extra inches were too hard?